What is really in our food products and is FDA keeping an eye on it?

The FDA was established as a regulatory overseer to ensure implementation of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law a quarter-century in the making that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs. Its official title 'Food and Drug Administration' was given in 1930.

Since then FDA has been entrusted with the task of " protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation" ( as defined on the FDA website)

But it is starting to become apparent that some food product manufacturers have found ways around the regulations that ensure public safety, most commonly used is a legal loophole, introduced in 1958, that allows use of additives in food products if deemed by them as 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). The most well known example of GRAS is partially hydrogenated fats.

As defined on the FDA site: "Under sections 201(s) and 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), any substance that is intentionally added to food is a food additive, that is subject to premarket review and approval by FDA, unless the substance is generally recognized, among qualified experts, as having been adequately shown to be safe under the conditions of its intended use, or unless the use of the substance is otherwise excluded from the definition of a food additive."

Thus these additives may not require FDA approval or oversight if declared as safe by industry experts. It is at the food companies' discretion whether to ask for FDA for approval or declare them harmless using the GRAS loophole. Such an evaluation by the food company is not required to be reviewed by the FDA, yet again the decision lies with the food companies.

What is worrisome is that in recent years several safety of such GRAS ingredients has been disputed by scientists and consumer groups. There have been documented cases where some GRAS additives have led to serious allergic reactions or other health issues.

The fact is that American consumers are ingesting food products with ingredients that have not be scrutinized and approved by the FDA. The long term effects of such ingredients on general health are not known or understood.

As pointed out in the NPR news article "Why The FDA Has Never Looked At Some Of The Additives In Our Food "
This is true of one of the most known — and vilified — GRAS additives: partially hydrogenated oil, a form of trans fat. Widely used in food products including fried foods and cake mixes, trans fats have been named by public health experts as a contributor to heart disease, stroke and Type 2 diabetes. Despite strong pushback from industry, the FDA in November 2013 made a tentative determination that artificial trans fats should not have GRAS status, and the agency is likely to make that determination final this summer.

The general assumption that these GRAS ingredients are safe is no longer being accepted by major consumer groups. These are now pushing for higher standards of review and scrutiny by FDA.
 
Researchers for the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Natural Resources Defense Council say that allowing companies to make safety determinations without telling the FDA makes it nearly impossible to identify whether there are health effects caused by long-term exposure to certain ingredients.
Their concerns are heightened because safety decisions often rest in the hands of a small group of scientific experts selected by companies or consulting firms with a financial incentive to get new ingredients on the market. Several of these scientists, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found, previously served as scientific consultants for tobacco companies during the 1980s and 1990s, when the tobacco industry fought vigorously to defend its products.

Unfortunately the steps being taken to control the increasing number of GRAS ingredients being used by food companies are lagging behind, as mentioned in the article;
In the past five decades, the number of food additives has skyrocketed — from about 800 to more than 10,000. They are added to everything from baked goods and breakfast cereals to energy bars and carbonated drinks.
Meanwhile, the FDA's food additive approval system has slowed to a crawl — the average review takes two years, but some drag on for decades.

Many industry experts feel these concerns are exaggerated, but as a consumer we need to take time to read food labels and try to make informed decisions of our own. After all the consequence of what we put in our bodies will primarily effects us and our families.

 


 
 

Bionic eye, bionic hand... another step closer to the bionic man!

Bionic Eye:



A blind man from Minnesota is able to see his wife for the first time in 10 years, after receiving a bionic eye. Allen Zderad, 68, was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease around 20 years ago, which eventually left him blind. Minnesota's Mayo Clinic gave Zderad a prototype eye device, known as Second Sight, allowing him to see shapes and human form.

Bionic Hand:


Three Austrian men have become the first in the world to undergo a new technique called “bionic reconstruction”, enabling them to use a robotic prosthetic hand controlled by their mind, according to research published in The Lancet. 

References:

Blind man sees wife for first time in 10 years (The Guardian -Feb 14, 2015)
Mind-controlled bionic hand using nerve transplants restores function (RT news- Feb 25, 2015)

Another reason why sitting in front of computer screens for hours on is not a good idea

Post by Health, Wellness and Mindfulness.

The autism vs vaccines controversy

In 1998 an article published in the British Journal The Lancet claimed it found a causal connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although that article was widely disputed and later retracted, it has left behind a significant following, leading many parents to refuse MMR vaccination for their children. The anti-vaccine groups also stressed on the use of mercury-based preservative Thimerosal in vaccines as a suspected culprit. As a result the government has gradually removed it or reduced it to trace amounts in all vaccines in 2001, in spite of no scientific proof of its possible link to incidence of autism. As explained on the CDC website;

"Over the years, some people have had concerns that autism might be linked to the vaccines children receive. One vaccine ingredient that has been studied specifically is thimerosal, previously used as a preservative in many recommended childhood vaccines. However, in 2001 thimerosal was removed or reduced to trace amounts in all childhood vaccines except for one type of influenza vaccine, and thimerosal-free alternatives are available for influenza vaccine. Evidence from several studies examining trends in vaccine use and changes in autism frequency does not support such an association between thimerosal and autism. Furthermore, a scientific review by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) concluded that "the evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal–containing vaccines and autism." CDC supports the IOM conclusion that there is no relationship between vaccines containing thimerosal and autism rates in children.
The IOM also recently conducted a thorough review of the current medical and scientific evidence on vaccines and certain health events that may be observed after vaccination. It released a report in August 2011 on 8 vaccines given to children and adults that found the vaccines to be generally safe and serious adverse events following these vaccinations to be rare."

The 2012 National Immunization Survey  found that about 90% of children aged 19 to 35 months completed recommended vaccinations and less than 1% received no vaccines at all. But it also highlighted the fact that rates are varied by states and regions therefore leaving some areas vulnerable to outbreaks of measles and other vaccine preventable diseases. The resurgence of measles and whooping cough (Pertussis) in recent years after decades of almost complete extinction could possibly be the distressing consequence of an increasing number of parents refusing the MMR vaccine on grounds of its possible association to autism. 

As explained by Puneet Kollipara in The Washington Post article How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (May 5, 2014).

A measles outbreak that struck a Texas megachurch community late last summer sickened 21 people. And just recently, at least 16 people got sick during a measles outbreak in Ohio. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported 13 measles outbreaks so far in 2014 -- the most since 1996.

According to an article in JAMA News;

Overall, among 140 US residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11 (8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, and 15 cases (13%) occurred among infants younger than 12 months who were not eligible for vaccination.


Besides leading to prevention and saving lives, these vaccines are also economically beneficial, as pointed out by Kuneet Kollipara;

A new study from CDC researchers led by Anne Schuchat analyzed what happened to disease rates as childhood vaccination rates increased starting in the early 1990s. The researchers used these findings to model the resulting effect over the kids' lifetimes. In the analysis, the researchers factored in most routine vaccines recommended for children below age 6 (among them the MMR and whooping cough vaccines). Their findings: Routine childhood vaccinations given between 1994 and 2013 will save 732,000 lives and prevent 322 million cases of illness and 21 million hospitalizations over the course of the children's lifetimes. 

In 2009 alone, the researchers determined, each $1 spent on vaccines and their administration yielded $10 in benefits to society. And the vaccinations from 1994-2013, the researchers found, will save society a net $1.38 trillion, both directly (by reducing health expenses) and indirectly (via the economic activity that is saved from avoided illnesses). That's almost 10 percent of the U.S. economy's gross domestic product.

In the end vaccines may not be without fault but there is no clear cut evidence to their causal link to autism. And they are definitely effective and save lives if given to a significant percentage of the population.



References:
How the anti-vaccine movement is endangering lives (The Washington Post-May 5, 2014).

Vaccine Safety: Concern about Autism (CDC)

Vaccination Rates for US Children Remain Generally High, But Measles Outbreaks Underscore Shortfalls in Some Regions(JAMA News Spetember 2013) 

The serious and difficult outcomes of saving extremely premature babies.

According to the CDC 1 in every 8 babies born in the US is preterm (birth of an infant prior to 37 weeks of pregnancy). 35% of all infant deaths in 2009 were because of preterm related causes of death. The US health care system spent about $26 billion on preterm births in 2005.
But the statistic that should be raising concern is that 'preterm birth is also a leading cause of long-term neurological disabilities in children.'

With modern medicine and all our advances in medical sciences, we have made it possible to save babies born at 22-23 weeks of gestation.  But preterm births are associated with some serious short term and long term complications. Not only do these prevent the child from living a normal healthy life they can take a severe toll on the family and the community. 

In the article 'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' reporter Tracy McVeigh covers the story of Alexia Pearce mother of a three years old son who was born prematurely at 23 weeks and now lives a difficult life with cerebral palsy and chronic lung disease. Alexia loves her son deeply yet she asks if "we are always right to save premature babies". Here are excerpt of the story;

Alexia Pearce looks at her three-year-old son Nathan every day and feels the same rush of guilt. Guilt that she chose to let him live when he was born too early, just 23 weeks into her pregnancy. "If I'd known then what I know now about what extremely premature babies have to go though, I would not have chosen that for my little boy.

"I would have wanted them to give him to me and for him to pass away in my arms. I find the whole issue of what he has been put through, what he continues to be put through, very difficult. I feel very guilty that I took that decision, postponing the inevitable."

"He can't walk or talk. He's oxygen dependent, although hopefully that might change. He has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and global developmental delay. He has diabetes inspidus and his thermostat is a bit wonky so he gets hot and cold."
It is, says Pearce, a great taboo to wonder if she should have let her son go when he was born so fragile and weak, but one that she feels strongly that she should break. "More people need to be aware of what these little chaps go through," she said.
"I have no regrets that what has happened has happened. Now this most gorgeous little thing is here and I absolutely adore him. I am so glad I have got to know him. But that doesn't stop me knowing that all I have done is postpone the inevitable. He's not expected to live a very long life. I don't think he'll make it to his teens. He's so frail.

While the latest figures show that 39% of babies born at 24 weeks are now surviving with help from medical advances, the chances of those children suffering no serious ill-effects in later life are low – around six in 100.Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
Last year, researchers from University College Hospital, London, found that premature babies were more sensitive to pain. All pre-term babies are more at risk of a lower IQ, poorer cognitive functioning, learning disabilities and behavioural problems such as attention deficit disorder than full-term babies.
"You hear about 'miracle babies' or 'little fighters' and people have such a romantic view about premature babies – 'Oh, there's an incubator for a little while and then they go home and everything is rosy'. It's not."

"Obviously every life deserves a chance, every life. But you wouldn't put an adult through that. You wouldn't put an animal through it. If an adult required that level of medical intervention then someone would be taking the family aside and suggesting gently that the machines are switched off."
Pearce had no warning of her own premature birth, brought about by a sudden complication in the pregnancy, a placental abruption, and had none of the risk factors – she doesn't drink or smoke, isn't obese and her first son, Dominick, now five, was born at full term.

"Birth and death are the most natural processes a body can go through and Nathan's birth and treatment was so far removed from that. Strange birth, choices to be made, difficult bonding. I had to wait six weeks to hold my son and when I did he was still attached to a ventilator and I had many nurses around me. It was all so clinical."
An advocate or counsellor figure would, she feels, help the mother think more clearly about the situation.

But for Alexia Pearce, it's important for families to fully understand too that the difficult times do not end when the baby leaves the incubator. "When you go into labour that early, nobody is a winner," she said. "I'm not saying stop people from having their premature baby resuscitated. I'm not saying babies shouldn't be saved. I am saying that the myth that there is a happy ever after needs to be explored and it's important that we talk about it.

(Read Complete Article)

References:
'Nathan was born at 23 weeks. If I'd known then what I do now, I'd have wanted him to die in my arms' (The Guardian/The Observer)
CDC Reproductive Health- Preterm Births 
Preterm Births- Complications (Mayo Clinic) 

Neurodevelopmental, Health, and Family Outcomes for Infants Born Preterm

(NCBI- National Center for Biotechnology Information)

A surge in antimicrobial resistance reported by WHO

The constant increase in the incidence of antimicrobial resistant infections is now becoming a major concern for the WHO. According to their recent report on 'Antimicrobial Resistance' this is a very real threat to global public health.
In recent decades the world has been aware of the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria and has been trying to promote responsible use of antibiotic treatment in an effort to counteract this rise. But it is the first time that the WHO has warned of a much more serious problem since antimicrobial resistance covers a much broader spectrum of microbes (eg. parasites, fungi, and viruses).

If such a resistance is seen the world over, effective treatment of even common infection may be difficult or impossible. According to the report;

Infections caused by resistant microorganisms often fail to respond to the standard treatment, resulting in prolonged illness, higher health care expenditures, and a greater risk of death.
As an example, the death rate for patients with serious infections caused by common bacteria treated in hospitals can be about twice that of patients with infections caused by the same non-resistant bacteria. For example, people with MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, another common source of severe infections in the community and in hospitals) are estimated to be 64% more likely to die than people with a non-resistant form of the infection.


Although this kind of resistance to antimicrobial is being seen more around the world. Unfortunately not only do many of these cases go unreported, but often the infections last longer, leaving the patients infectious for a much longer time period , thus increasing the risk of further spreading the infection to others.

The report also highlights another consequence of AMR (Antimicrobial resistance), when infections fail to respond to first line of drugs, doctors have to resort to more aggressive therapies which are far more expensive, patients need medical supervision for a longer duration and hospital stays are also prolonged. All together these factors significantly increase the health care costs.

According to the report, the economic outcome can be damaging;

The growth of global trade and travel allows resistant microorganisms to be spread rapidly to distant countries and continents through humans and food. Estimates show that AMR may give rise to losses in Gross Domestic Product of more than 1% and that the indirect costs affecting society may be more than 3 times the direct health care expenditures. It affects developing economies proportionally more than developed ones. 

Some of the noteworthy resistances being seen globally are:

Resistance in Bacteria

WHO’s 2014 report on global surveillance of antimicrobial resistance reveals that antibiotic resistance is no longer a prediction for the future; it is happening right now, across the world, and is putting at risk the ability to treat common infections in the community and hospitals. Without urgent, coordinated action, the world is heading towards a post-antibiotic era, in which common infections and minor injuries, which have been treatable for decades, can once again kill.

Resistance in Tuberculosis

Globally, 6% of new TB cases and 20% of previously treated TB cases are estimated to have MDR-TB, with substantial differences in the frequency of MDR-TB among countries. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB, defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to any fluoroquinolone and any second-line injectable drug) has been identified in 92 countries, in all regions of the world.

Resistance in Malaria

The emergence of P. falciparum resistance to artemisinin in the Greater Mekong subregion is an urgent public health concern that is threatening the ongoing global effort to reduce the burden of malaria. Routine monitoring of therapeutic efficacy is essential to guide and adjust treatment policies. It can also help to detect early changes in P. falciparum sensitivity to antimalarial drugs.

Resistance in HIV

At the end of 2011, more than 8 million people were receiving antiretroviral therapy in low- and middle-income countries to treat HIV. Although it can be minimized through good programme practices, some amount of resistance to the medications used to treat HIV is expected to emerge. 

There is no clear evidence of increasing levels of resistance to other classes of HIV drugs. Of 72 surveys of transmitted HIV drug resistance conducted between 2004 and 2010, 20 (28%) were classified as having moderate (between 5% and 15%) prevalence of resistance.

Resistance in Influenza

Several countries have developed national guidance on their use and have stockpiled the drugs for pandemic preparedness. The constantly evolving nature of influenza means that resistance to antiviral drugs is continuously emerging.
By 2012, virtually all influenza A viruses circulating in humans were resistant to drugs frequently used for the prevention of influenza (amantadine and rimantadine). However, the frequency of resistance to the neuraminidase inhibitor oseltamivir remains low (1-2%). Antiviral susceptibility is constantly monitored through the WHO Global Surveillance and Response System.


How can this surge be slowed down?

According to the WHO report, this rise in AMR is the result of a multiple factors. 
Here are some suggestions it provides in the report:

People

• using antibiotics only when they are prescribed by a certified health professional;
• completing the full treatment course, even if they feel better;
• never sharing antibiotics with others or using leftover prescriptions.

Health Care Workers And Pharmacists

• enhancing infection prevention and control;
• prescribing and dispensing antibiotics only when they are truly needed;
• prescribing and dispensing the right antibiotic(s) to treat the illness.

Policymakers 

• strengthening resistance tracking and laboratory capacity;
• strengthening infection control and prevention;
• regulating and promoting appropriate use of medicines;
• promoting cooperation and information sharing among all stakeholders.

Policymakers, Scientists and Industry

• fostering innovation and research and development of new vaccines, diagnostics, infection treatment options and other tools. 

In the end what is the WHO doing to counteract AMR? 
 
In 2014, WHO published its first global report on surveillance of antimicrobial resistance, with data provided by 114 countries.
WHO is guiding the response to AMR by:

• bringing all stakeholders together to agree on and work towards a coordinated response;
• strengthening national stewardship and plans to tackle AMR;
• generating policy guidance and providing technical support for Member States;
• actively encouraging innovation, research and development.

 

















References:
WHO Report on Antimicrobial Resistance (Updated April 2014)
Detect and Protect Against Antibiotic Resistance Budget Initiative (CDC)

WHO report: Antibiotic resistance happening right now all over the world (The Independent-April 30, 2014)

Several studies find further evidence of detrimental effects caused by marijuana smoking

Since this wave of legalization of use of recreational marijuana is spreading gradually but surely to more and more states in the United States, more and more studies funded by medical institutions and organizations are reporting on the very real dangers of frequent marijuana use. I am going to highlight only a few of the studies published on the subject in various medical journals in the past few years.

Journal of Neuroscience (April 16, 2014)

This study conducted by researchers from Harvard University and Chicago's Northwestern Medicine group, using a small sample of 40 individuals between the ages of 18-25 has shown that smoking cannabis ( also known as marijuana) once or twice a week can lead to major changes in brain areas associated with emotions and motivation.

In an article on this study, "Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study" published in The Independent ( April 16th 2014), health reporter Charlie Cooper writes;

The researchers used neuroimaging techniques to analyze the brains of cannabis users and non-users.

They found that the nucleus accumbens was unusually large in the cannabis users, while the amygdala also had noticeable abnormalities.
Anne Blood, assistant professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School said that the areas affected were "core, fundamental structures of the brain".
"They form the basis for how you assess positive and negative features about things in the environment and make decisions," she said.
The severity of abnormalities in these regions of the brain was directly related to the number of joints a person smoked per week, according to the study, published in the Journal of Neuroscience on Wednesday. The more joints a person smoked, the more abnormal the shape, volume and density of the brain regions, but the effect was noticeable even in those who smoked once or twice a week.
However, experts in the UK said that the study group was small and that more research was needed over a longer timescale to establish whether cannabis smoking caused the unusual brain features, or whether people with such brain features were more likely to smoke cannabis in the first place.
Around one million people aged between 16 and 24 use cannabis in the UK per year, according to the charity DrugScope. Its use has been reported to cause anxiety and paranoia in some users and in rarer cases may be a trigger for underlying mental health problems.
Dr Michael Bloomfield, clinical research fellow at the UK's Medical Research Council (MRC), said that the study added to the MRC's own research which found that heavy cannabis use in adolescence is associated with changes in chemical connections in the brain.

Schizophrenia Bulletin ( December 16, 2013)

Yet another study conducted by Northwestern Medicine and mainly funded by The National Institute of Mental Health and National Institute of Drug Abuse, has shown that heavy use of marijuana (daily for 3 years) in teen years can lead to abnormal changes in the brain structure related to memory. The teens in the study performed poorly on memory tasks.
According to lead study author Matthew Smith, an assistant research professor in psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, " The study links the chronic use of marijuana to these concerning brain abnormalities that appear to last for at least a few years after people stop using it, with the movement to decriminalize marijuana, we need more research to understand its effect on the brain."
Chronic use of marijuana may contribute to changes in brain structure that are associated with having schizophrenia, the Northwestern research shows. Of the 15 marijuana smokers who had schizophrenia in the study, 90 percent started heavily using the drug before they developed the mental disorder. Marijuana abuse has been linked to developing schizophrenia in prior research.

As reported in 'Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory'

by Eureka Alert online science news service;

"The abuse of popular street drugs, such as marijuana, may have dangerous implications for young people who are developing or have developed mental disorders," said co-senior study author John Csernansky, M.D., chair of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and Northwestern Memorial Hospital. "This paper is among the first to reveal that the use of marijuana may contribute to the changes in brain structure that have been associated with having schizophrenia."
Chronic marijuana use could augment the underlying disease process associated with schizophrenia, Smith noted. "If someone has a family history of schizophrenia, they are increasing their risk of developing schizophrenia if they abuse marijuana," he said.
While chronic marijuana smokers and chronic marijuana smokers with schizophrenia both had brain changes related to the drug, subjects with the mental disorder had greater deterioration in the thalamus. That structure is the communication hub of the brain and is critical for learning, memory and communications between brain regions. The brain regions examined in this study also affect motivation, which is already notably impaired in people with schizophrenia.
"A tremendous amount of addiction research has focused on brain regions traditionally connected with reward/aversion function, and thus motivation," noted co-senior study author Hans Breiter, M.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and director of the Warren Wright Adolescent Center at Feinberg and Northwestern Memorial. "This study very nicely extends the set of regions of concern to include those involved with working memory and higher level cognitive functions necessary for how well you organize your life and can work in society."


Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology (May 18, 2009)

The study Dr. Michael Bloomfield mentions was conducted by  Leicester University’s Rajinder Singh, Jatinderpal Sandhu, Balvinder Kaur, Tina Juren, William P. Steward, Dan Segerback and Peter B. Farmer from the Cancer Biomarkers and Prevention Group, Department of Cancer Studies and Molecular Medicine and Karolinska Institute, Sweden. This research was funded by MRC, European Union Network of Excellence (ECNIS) and Cancer Research UK. The findings were published in the Journal of Chemical Research in Toxicology.
In this case researchers found "convincing evidence" that cannabis smoke damages DNA in ways that could potentially increase the risk of cancer development in humans.  

Lead author Dr Singh said:
“There have been many studies on the toxicity of tobacco smoke. It is known that tobacco smoke contains 4000 chemicals of which 60 are classed as carcinogens. Cannabis in contrast has not been so well studied. It is less combustible than tobacco and is often mixed with tobacco in use. Cannabis smoke contains 400 compounds including 60 cannabinoids. However, because of its lower combustibility it contains 50% more carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalene, benzanthracene, and benzopyrene, than tobacco smoke.” 
The authors added: “It is well known that toxic substances in tobacco smoke can damage DNA and increase the risk of lung and other cancers. Scientists were unsure though whether cannabis smoke would have the same effect. Our research has focused on the toxicity of acetaldehyde, which is present in both tobacco and cannabis.”
The researchers add that the ability of cannabis smoke to damage DNA has significant human health implications especially as users tend to inhale more deeply than cigarette smokers, which increases respiratory burden.
"These results provide evidence for the DNA damaging potential of cannabis smoke," the researchers conclude, "implying that the consumption of cannabis cigarettes may be detrimental to human health with the possibility to initiate cancer development."

Although in each case marijuana use supporters will argue the sample sizes are too small or the study was biased, the results of each of these researches were very real. If anything further promotion of the idea that recreational use of marijuana is completely harmless should be discouraged more aggressively.


References:

Cannabis Use is Quantitatively Associated with Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala Abnormalities in Young Adult

Recreational Users (The Journal of Neuroscience-April 16, 2014)

Smoking cannabis could change the part of the brain dealing with motivation, according to one new study(The Independent April 16, 2014)
Cannabis use increases cancer risk study suggests (MRC News & Publications)
Marijuana May Hurt The Developing Teen Brain(Health News NPR-March 3, 2014)
Heavy Marijuana Use Alters Teenage Brain Structure(Psychology Today-March 30, 2014)

Heavy marijuana users have abnormal brain structure and poor memory (Northwestern University on Eureka Alert-December 16, 2013)

Cannabis-Related Working Memory Deficits and Associated Subcortical Morphological Differences in Healthy Individuals and Schizophrenia Subjects (Schizophrenia Bulletin- Published 12/15/13) 

Evaluation of the DNA Damaging Potential of Cannabis Cigarette Smoke by the Determination of Acetaldehyde Derived N²-Ethyl-2′-deoxyguanosine Adducts(Chemical Research in Toxicology-May 18, 2009)

 

How much benefit do we really get from Organic food?

Most people myself included tend to think of organic foods as healthier and safer. But that may not always be the case, points out Tamar Haspel in her recent article in The Washington Post's Health and food section. To make it simple she simply gives the evidence on the nutrition and contamination of both organic and conventional foods such as milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish. Here is a short excerpt of the article;

Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.

Organic or conventional? It’s a choice many grocery shoppers are faced with, over and over. The price difference is easy to see; it’s right there on the product. The quality difference is much harder. Is the organic milk better for your kids? Is the conventional lettuce more likely to carry pathogens?

Leave aside for the moment whether organic agriculture is better for the planet and whether organic livestock have better lives, although there’s a strong case for both of those arguments. Leave aside flavor, too, because it’s subjective and variable. What motivates many organic buyers, particularly the parents of small children, is health benefits, and there are two questions: Do organics do us more good (in the form of better nutrition), and do they do us less harm (in the form of fewer contaminants and pathogens)? 

Milk 
 
Nutrition: Compared with conventional milk, organic milk has higher levels of omega-3 fats, which protect against heart disease and may decrease the risk of depression, stroke, cancer and other diseases, but the quantities are too small to be very meaningful. (It takes 11 quarts of organic milk to equal the omega-3s in four ounces of salmon.) Milk’s omega-3 content is a function of the cow’s diet, and higher levels reflect more grass. (A few other nutritional differences between organic and conventional milk have been studied, but there isn’t enough research to draw conclusions.)
Contamination: Neither organic nor conventional milk contains antibiotics. By law, every truckload of milk, organic and conventional, is tested for veterinary drugs, including antibiotics, by trained dairy workers. Any load that tests positive is pulled out of the food supply.
Hormones: The issue with milk is that many conventionally raised dairy cows, unlike organic ones, are injected with bovine growth hormone (BGH, the synthetic version of which is called either recombinant bovine growth hormone, rBGH, or recombinant bovine somatotropin, rBST) to increase their milk production.Both organic and conventional cows have IGF-I in their milk, but cows that get hormone treatment may have more of it.
The use of rBGH has fueled concerns among some parents about giving milk to children, but the FDA report concluded that “consumption by infants and children of milk and edible products from rBGH-treated cows is safe.”
Bottom line: Organic milk has higher omega-3 fat levels, but probably not enough to make a difference. Exposure to pesticides, contaminants or hormones is not a significant risk in either organic or conventional milk.
 
Produce

Nutrition: Many studies have compared the vitamins, minerals, macronutrients and other compounds in organic and conventional produce, and a 2012 review concluded that the results were all over the map. The one exception was that the phosphorus content of organic produce is higher, although the review, done by Stanford University scientists, calls that finding “not clinically significant.”
Contamination: There are two issues for foods that grow in the ground: pesticides and pathogens. There is widespread agreement that organic produce, while not pesticide-free, has lower residue levels and fewer pesticides.
Carl Winter, a toxicologist at the University of California at Davis, says that the Environmental Protection Agency, working from animal research and factoring in the special sensitivities of human subgroups such as babies and children, has found that lifetime risk of adverse health effects due to low-level exposure to pesticide residue through consumption of produce is “far below even minimal health concerns, even over a lifetime.” 
As for pathogens, the 2012 Stanford review found that E. coli contamination is slightly more likely in organic than conventional produce.
The best strategy to reduce risk from produce isn’t to buy either organic or conventional. Rather, it’s to cook your food.
Bottom line: While there may be no significant nutritional difference between organic and conventional produce, organic does have lower levels of pesticide residue. However, there isn’t universal agreement on the risk those residues pose.
 
Meat
 
Nutrition: As with milk, the main issue here is omega-3 fats. Some organic meat and poultry have more of them than conventional products do. The reason is diet: Animals that eat more grass have lower fat levels overall and higher omega-3 levels than animals fed more grain.
Although measurements of omega-3 fats in beef vary, the numbers are low and substantially below what can be found in a serving of salmon.
Contaminants: The USDA randomly tests carcasses for residues of pesticides, contaminants and veterinary drugs including antibiotics. In 2011, it screened for 128 chemicals, and 99 percent of the tested carcasses were free of all of them.
It found a few with residue violations and a similar small number with residue within legal limits (mostly of arsenic and antibiotics). Although the USDA doesn’t report organic and conventional separately, contaminant risk overall is extremely low.
The bigger concern is pathogens. Studies of bacterial contamination levels of organic and conventional meat show widely varying results. These findings suggest that organic meat may be slightly more likely to be contaminated, possibly because no antibiotics are used. But conventional meat is more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. But the risk in meat overall was essentially the same. And whether meat is conventional or organic, the solution is adequate cooking.
Bottom line: Grass-fed beef has a slight edge over grain-fed because of higher omega-3 levels, but the amounts are probably too small to affect human health.

Eggs
 
Nutrition: As with milk and meat, the omega-3 levels of eggs are affected by the hens’ diet and can be increased by pasturing or diet supplementation for either organic or conventional hens. Eggs high in omega-3s are generally labeled.
Contaminants: There’s very little research on contaminants in eggs. The 2012 Stanford review concluded that there is “no difference” in contamination risk between conventional and organic eggs.
Bottom line: There are no significant differences affecting health between organic and conventional eggs.  

Fish
 
The USDA has not issued any organic standards for farmed fish or shellfish, but several overseas organizations have. (Because there’s no way to control the diet of wild fish, “organic” doesn’t apply.) Canadian standards prohibit antibiotics and hormones, restrict pesticides and set criteria for acceptable feed. There’s not enough research comparing organic and conventional fish to draw any conclusions about their health benefits.


Reference:
Is organic better for your health? A look at milk, meat, eggs, produce and fish.


(The Washington Post- Health, Science and Environment 07/04/14)

No such thing as right-brained or left-brained

Remember all those quizzes meant to figure out whether you are left-brained or right-brained? Well, researchers have just declared them all useless since there is no such thing as left-brained or right-brained.
Although distinct skills have been attributed to whichever hemisphere is dominant for ages and seemed to make sense but sadly they have no scientific basis according to a two year research completed by neuroscientists at University of Utah. The study published in the Plos One Journal is based on a two years long study involving scanning the brains of more then a 1000 individuals between the ages of 7-29 while performing such simple tasks such as lying quietly or reading. These scans were used to measure these individuals' brain functional lateralization meaning the specific mental functions occurring on each side of the brain. For accuracy functional lateralization was measured for each pair of 7266 regions of the grey matter.
Analysis of the data collected as a result lead to the conclusion
" An individual brain is not “left-brained” or “right-brained” as a global property, but that asymmetric lateralization is a property of individual nodes or local subnetworks, and that different aspects of the left-dominant network and right-dominant network may show relatively greater or lesser lateralization within an individual. If a connection involving one of the left hubs is strongly left-lateralized in an individual, then other connections in the left-dominant network also involving this hub may also be more strongly left lateralized, but this did not translate to a significantly generalized lateralization of the left-dominant network or right-dominant network. Similarly, if a left-dominant network connection was strongly left lateralized, this had no significant effect on the degree of lateralization within connections in the right-dominant network, except for those connections where a left-lateralized connection included a hub that was overlapping or close to a homotopic right-lateralized hub."

(Read Complete Article)








References:

An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging(PLOS ONE Journal-August 2013)

Despite what you've been told, you aren't 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' (The Guardian- Nov 2013) 

Shift work clearly detrimental to health

It is a fact that doing the night shift at work is terribly hard. It not only affect our personal and social lives it also throws our whole sleep cycle into chaos. Now scientists at the Sleep Research Center Surrey have found definite proof that night work can lead to long term damage starting at molecular level. Night shift work has been linked to a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, heart attacks and cancer.

According to an article in BBC World News by James Gallagher;
'Experts said the scale, speed and severity of damage caused by being awake at night was a surprise.

The human body has its own natural rhythm or body clock tuned to sleep at night and be active during the day.
It has profound effects on the body, altering everything from hormones and body temperature to athletic ability, mood and brain function.'

Scientists observed 22 individuals as their bodies adjusted from their normal patterns to working the night shift. Preliminary blood test showed that 6% genes had precise daily activity cycles. As the individuals got into a night work routine, these cycles were thrown off. 
The researchers call this 'Chrono-Chaos', here the scientists on the team explain it;

"Over 97% of rhythmic genes become out of sync with mistimed sleep and this really explains why we feel so bad during jet lag, or if we have to work irregular shifts," said Dr Simon Archer, one of the researchers at the University of Surrey.
Fellow researcher Prof Derk-Jan Dijk said every tissue in the body had its own daily rhythm, but with shifts that was lost with the heart running to a different time to the kidneys running to a different time to the brain.
He told the BBC: "It's chrono-chaos. It's like living in a house. There's a clock in every room in the house and in all of those rooms those clocks are now disrupted, which of course leads to chaos in the household."
Prof Dijk added: "We of course know that shift work and jet lag is associated with negative side effects and health consequences.
"They show up after several years of shift work. We believe these changes in rhythmic patterns of gene expression are likely to be related to some of those long-term health consequences."

According to Web MD about 8.6 million people do shift work, meaning either they work the night shift or they rotate shifts during the week.  These include police officers, firefighters, nurses, doctors, pilots, waitresses, truck drivers, and many more professionals. Even a personal trainer who works out at the gym with clients in the early mornings and evenings is a shift worker.
Some of the short term health problems seen more commonly in shift workers are; 

• Gastrointestinal symptoms like upset stomach, nausea, diarrhea, constipation, and heartburn
• Increased risk of injuries and accidents
• Insomnia
• Decreased quality of life
• General feeling of being unwell

Whereas the long term effects on health are harder to measure but there has been compelling proof that shift workers might be more prone to these long term medical problems;

• Cardiovascular disease
• Diabetes and Metabolic Disorder
• Depression and Mood Disorders
• Serious Gastrointestinal Problems
• Obesity
• Problems with Fertility and Pregnancy
• Cancer

 Although most of these long term effects may occur only after decades of disruptive shift work, but some health problems might develop much faster. For many professions shift work is inevitable, hence can not be completely avoided. In those cases, here are some suggestions on the Web MD to help minimize the damage:

• Eat Well and Exercise
• Get enough Sleep
• Change your Schedule
• See your Doctor

P.S:
References

Night work 'throws body into chaos' (BBC World News)

The Health Risks of Shift Work (Web MD)

Restoring sight with gene therapy

A great breakthrough in treatment of blindness has been seen as surgeons in Oxford UK, have used gene therapy to improve the vision of six patients who would have gone blind without it. BBC World News' science correspondent Pallab Ghosh reports;

'Surgeons in Oxford have used a gene therapy technique to improve the vision of six patients who would otherwise have gone blind.

The operation involved inserting a gene into the eye, a treatment that revived light-detecting cells.
The doctors involved believe that the treatment could in time be used to treat common forms of blindness.
Prof Robert MacLaren, the surgeon who led the research, said he was "absolutely delighted" at the outcome.
"We really couldn't have asked for a better result," he said.
BBC News exclusively reported on the start of the trial two years ago. The first patient was Jonathan Wyatt, who was 63 at the time.
Mr Wyatt has a genetic condition known as choroideremia, which results in the light-detecting cells at the back of the eye gradually dying.
Mr Wyatt was still just about able to see when he had the operation. His hope was that the procedure would stop further deterioration and save what little sight he had left.
He, like another patient in Professor MacLaren's trial, found that not only did the operation stabilise his vision - it improved it. The other subjects, who were at earlier stages in their vision, experienced improvements in their ability to see at night.
Mr Wyatt is now able to read three lines further down in an optician's sight chart.'
( Read on..)



P.S:

Gene therapy 'could be used to treat blindness'(January 15, 2014)

Gene therapy used in a bid to save a man's sight  (October 27, 2011)

The rise of the drug-resistant infections

For many decades after the discovery of the first antibiotic, we have been able to root out and beat bacterial infections after bacterial infections. But when the medical professionals celebrated this invincibility with the widespread use of antibiotics, most of them forgot the fact that bacteria like any other life form know how to evolve. And thus after being victorious against even the most aggressive and deadly infections for almost a century, we are now facing a new breed of bacteria that have learned to survive even the strongest drugs in our antibiotic arsenal.

According to the CDC Antibiotic Resistant Threats 2013 Report;
Each year in the United States, at least 2 million people acquire serious infections with bacteria that are resistant to one or more of the antibiotics designed to treat those infections. At least 23,000 people die each year as a direct result of these antibiotic-resistant infections. Many more die from other conditions that were complicated by an antibiotic-resistant infection.
In addition, almost 250,000 people each year require hospital care for Clostridium difficile (C. difficile) infections.In most of these infections, the use of antibiotics was a major contributing factor leading to the illness. At least 14,000 people die each year in the United States from C. difficile infections. Many of these infections could have been prevented.
The most aggressive and lethal drug resistant infections are caused by gram-negative bacteria, which are mostly seen in healthcare settings, but other forms of bacteria are also showing presence of drug-resistant strains. As to who is more likely to be at high risk, according to the report, it is often individuals with suppressed, weak or damaged immunity. But many innovative treatments require effective treatment of any infection, as a result it is becoming very difficult to offer such options to individuals with other pre-existing conditions, such as diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma.
Some of the common medical situations in which doctors are faced with this dilemma are;

1. Cancer Chemotherapy
2. Complex Surgeries (eg. Joint replacement, Cardiac Bypass)
3. Rheumatoid Arthritis
4. Dialysis for End-Stage Renal Disease
5. Organ and Bone Marrow Transplants

What makes these new infections worrisome it the fact these can happen anywhere. Data has shown that majority of these happen in the general population but the antibiotic resistance mostly develops in a healthcare setting such as a hospital or nursing home.


The CDC also classifies these drug-resistant superbugs by threat levels: 
Urgent:

These are high-consequence antibiotic-resistant threats because of significant risks identified across several criteria. These threats may not be currently widespread but have the potential to become so and require urgent public health attention to identify infections and to limit transmission.

Serious:

These are significant antibiotic-resistant threats. For varying reasons (eg.,low or declining domestic incidence or reasonable availability of therapeutic agents), they are not considered urgent, but these threats will worsen and may become urgent without ongoing public health monitoring and prevention activities.

Concerning: 

These are bacteria for which the threat of antibiotic resistance is low, and/ or there are multiple therapeutic options for resistant infections. These bacterial pathogens cause severe illness. Threats in this category require monitoring and in some cases rapid incident or outbreak response.

The report in the end points to the lack of certain measures that might help, as a result, these are some of the suggested steps, that might allow healthcare professionals everywhere, better understand and cope with this serious growing medical problem, include;

 An efficient capacity to detect and respond to urgent and emerging antibiotic resistance threats at national, state and federal levels.
-A collaborative systematic international surveillance of antibiotic resistance threats.
-Systematically collect data on antibiotic use in human healthcare and agriculture.
-More widely use programs to improve antibiotic prescribing practices in the United States.
-Promote the use of advanced technologies that can identify threats much faster then current practices.

P.S: 
CDC Antibiotic Resistant Threats 2013 Report
CDC sets threat levels for drug-resistant 'superbugs' (CNN News)

Frankenstein may not be just fiction anymore....

Some recent headlines in the world of medicine have been unusual and a little unsettling, they sound like sci-fi more then actual reality.

One of them was in September ' Doctors grow nose on man's forehead' on ABC News Medicine Unit. Yes it is exactly what it says. A young man Xiaolian 22, in China, injured his nose in a traffic accident in 2012, subsequent infections lead to the corrosion of the damaged cartilage in the nose. Doctors could no longer fix it, hence they decided to grow him a new one at the Fuzhou hospital in China. Now that the nose is grown, doctors can transplant it to his face successfully.

Then yesterday read this headline ' Severed hand kept alive on man's ankle ' on BBC World News. Xiao Wei in China severed his right hand in an accident at work, his arm extremity was in such a bad shape that surgeons could not re-attach the hand immediately. To keep the hand healthy and alive, the surgeons then grafted the hand to his  left ankle and supplied it with a steady blood supply. After about a month the surgeons successfully reattached the hand to his right arm. According to latest reports from his doctors Xiao Wei will need several surgeries before he can regain full function of his hand, which is highly likely.

But the most disturbing one was in July 2013 'Human Head Transplants Could Become Reality' on ABC News Medicine Unit. Here is part of the report;
' In the journal Surgical Neurology International, Canavero outlined a procedure for taking the head of one person and transplanting it onto the body of another. It involves inducing hypothermia and cutting the spinal cord with an “ultra-sharp blade” so it can be fused with the donor’s spinal cord.
“This is, of course, totally different from what happens in clinical spinal cord injury, where gross damage and scarring hinder regeneration,” Canavero wrote.
He outlined a hypothetical scenario in which the body donor is a brain dead patient. He said the recipient could be anyone dying of cancer or anything else  that leaves the brain intact.
For the head transplant to work, two surgeries would have to take place in the same operating room in which both spinal cords would be severed simultaneously but only after all other cuts had been made. Then, the donor body’s spinal cord would be “chemofused” to the recipient head’s spinal cord using a substance called polyethylene glycol, or PEG. Canavero called his surgery the Heaven surgery, for “head anastomosis venture.” '
Heaven! Really? I would think more like Hell! This is not an issue of it being scientifically possible or not, to me it is a matter of whether it is ethical or not. Who gets a transplant? Whose body and whose head? Do we honestly want Frankensteins to be a reality? 
Mankind loves to challenge nature and overcome it's limitations, but trying to make this happen would not be wise, there is just so much meddling nature can take. Let's keep this one limited to our scifi books and movies... 

There is more to fiber then you would know..

All physicians as a matter of habit suggest eating high fiber diets, whether to lose weight, lower cholesterol, improve digestion, have a healthy heart, name it and high fiber diet will be recommended. So what is so special about fiber?

Lisa Collier Cool has written a very informative piece on Yahoo Health on the subject and discusses a recent study on the link between fiber in the diet and heart disease.. Here are excerpts;

' If a miracle ingredient found in many tasty, inexpensive foods helped you lose weight, live longer, and avoid dangerous diseases, wouldn’t you eat it every day?

Actually, there is such a food ingredient—dietary fiber—and most of us eat too little of it, putting ourselves at increased risk for heart problems and other health woes, according to a new study published in the December issue of The American Journal of Medicine (AJM).

What’s the link between fiber and heart disease risk?

The researchers reported that previous studies suggest that dietary fiber protects against heart disease by reducing blood pressure, cholesterol, and biomarkers of inflammation, all of which play a major role in the development of heart disease, the leading killer of Americans. 

What are the other health benefits of fiber?

In a 2011 study of nearly 400,000 older adults, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and American Association of Retired People (AARP), those who ate a fiber-rich diet had the lowest death rates during the 9-year study.

The study found that men ages 50 or older who ate the most fiber had an up to 56 percent lower risk for dying from cardiovascular disease, respiratory illnesses, or infectious diseases, compared to men who ate the least fiber. In women ages 50 and up, a high-fiber diet reduced fatalities from those conditions by up to 59 percent. ' (Complete Article)

P.S: Here are links to studies mentioned above;

Dietary Fiber Intake and Mortality in the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study

Dietary Fiber Intake and Cardiometabolic Risks among US Adults, NHANES 1999-2010

To be overweight or not to be overweight should not even be a question!

After reading the conflicting news on Obesity in 2013 alone, I am mystified and dumbfounded. Why are we even asking if obesity is healthy or not? If you have ever seen a real human heart or a real human liver or spleen, you would know they were never meant to support gigantic amounts of fat. It is is clearly another attempt by the processed food industry and the GMO industry to avoid being looked at as a potential source of all the weight woes.

On January 2, 2013 CNN actually reported that if you are overweight you will live longer, the headline was 'Being overweight linked to lower risk of mortality' Then the next day read another shocking CNN headline  'Big deal: You can be fat and fit'. Really??!!

If we start justifying being fat and deceive ourselves into believing we can be fat and fit, then we probably will end up like the morbidly obese people from that animated movie "Wall-E (2008)", who are shown to be totally dependent on automated systems from feeding themselves to washing themselves, they actually never get off their high-tech seats that not only take them everywhere but also convert into beds at night. As a result the individuals never do much muscular movement, and hence don't develop the muscle strength to even walk.

The scary part is we already have people in the US who are so morbidly obese that they can't carry their own weight anymore and need motorized chairs to move around a grocery store or a mall. Some might have valid medical reasons for the weight gain but a huge majority do not. The major reason for them being overweight is poor food choices and too big portions. The fact that every American restaurant and specially fast food restaurant serves unhealthily large servings of unhealthy foods does not help.

There is also a huge lobby promoting the use of synthetic ingredients in our foods, such as trans fats, high fructose corn syrup, etc.... Whereas the Agriculture industry is pushing the use on GMOs on farmers everywhere and growing more and more bioengineered foods. Unfortunately very little legislation controls or oversees the use of these genetically manufactured seeds. And then the media furthers the public ignorance of what is really making them obese and sick by spreading news such as "Fat is fun and healthy".

Amongst this media madness it was a relief to see reports of the latest study on obesity that dispelled the myth that you can be fat and healthy. Here is an excerpt from the story on BBC World (Dec.3rd, 2013);

The idea of "healthy obesity" is a myth, research suggests.

Excess fat still carries health risks even when cholesterol, blood pressure and sugar levels are normal, according to a study of more than 60,000 people.

It has been argued that being overweight does not necessarily imply health risks if individuals remain healthy in other ways.

The research, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, contradicts this idea.

The study looked at findings from published studies tracking heart health and weight in more than 60,000 adults.

Researchers from the Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, found there was no healthy pattern of increased weight when heart health was monitored for more than 10 years.

They argue that people who are metabolically healthy but overweight probably have underlying risk factors that worsen over time.

Study leader Dr Ravi Retnakaran told BBC News: "This really casts doubt on the existence of healthy obesity.

"This data is suggesting that both patients who are obese who are metabolically unhealthy and patients who are obese who are metabolically healthy are both at increased risk of death from cardiovascular disease, such that benign obesity may indeed be a myth."

(Complete Story)

I do realize some individuals will find my point of view mean and unsympathetic, but often the truth hurts and isn't well received even if coming from our well-wishers. I write about this only to remind us that our bodies are not meant to be obese, and expecting them to keep functioning normally when overworked and overburdened is unreasonable. Most of the reasons besides actual medical and physiological causes of being morbidly overweight, have a solution. Trying to make being fat fun isn't one of them!

We need to address this problem head on as a nation and refuse to feed ourselves and our children these man made artificial items they like to sell as food. We have to look at what we eat and how much we eat. We need to regulate what the Food and Beverage Industry can put into our foods and drinks. We need to regulate the unnecessary use of GMOs, bioengineering and chemical fertilizers by the Agriculture Industry.
And last but not least we need to stop finding excuses for our own neglect. We alone are guilty of reckless behavior when it comes to benign obesity and therefore we need to accept responsibility for our own health.